Beaslbob . . . .
- Thread starter 007
- Start date
bigsteve
Member
Originally posted by Kip4130
quick note big steve,
you shouldnt add salt to your topoff water.
(not sure what you meant by "adding IO to tap and not doing water changes")
but i thought i'd throw that out there.
I don't.... i'm not sure why I said that. Probably because it was late when I posted that and just had a brain fart. But at least I know someone was interested in my book
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Kip4130
is coralline algae a plant bob... i love how you twist info to work for your advantage... its what psychologists call a manipulator.
NO corraline algae is corraline algae, a form of plant life. Just as I stated and posted. Now who's manipulating.
007
Active Member
Arguing with someone who uses inconsistent rationales is difficult, but when there are such blatant flaws it is simple . . . .
So Bob, according to your latest rationale, My tank is teeming with "plant life" correct? And the "plant life" you are referring to is the coralline correct?
Since you seem to include now microalgaes in your definition of plant life, then based on that same rationale you are saying that microalgaes are desireable and beneficial.
So based on this logic, I can induce that I should be adding hair algae, cyanobacteria, valonia, and bryopsis to my tank in order to control my water parameters?
But wait a minute here . . . . I thought the addition of plant life was to eliminate such problems?
So which is it here?
Whats your next line of thought bob?
So Bob, according to your latest rationale, My tank is teeming with "plant life" correct? And the "plant life" you are referring to is the coralline correct?
Since you seem to include now microalgaes in your definition of plant life, then based on that same rationale you are saying that microalgaes are desireable and beneficial.
So based on this logic, I can induce that I should be adding hair algae, cyanobacteria, valonia, and bryopsis to my tank in order to control my water parameters?
But wait a minute here . . . . I thought the addition of plant life was to eliminate such problems?
So which is it here?
Whats your next line of thought bob?
007
Active Member
Originally posted by beaslbob
You are correct plant life does not "consume" metal ions. But yu are simply wrong on this as everyone on this board using tap water and having thriving plant life can attest to. Plant life is one of the most effective ways of filtering all sorts of toxins and is used to clean up toxic dump sites as well as in water treatment plants. Fresh and saltwater plant life does the same thing.
So plants dont consume metals correct? (you just said they don't)
Then what happens to all the metal ions found in tap water? The levels of metal Ions found in tap water I am sure exceeed the concentrations found on natural reefs. By not changing water you have an accumulation of these metals in your water.
Thats not very "nature like" now is it?
But wait a minute . . . . I thought that
Originally posted by beaslbob
of course the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 007
Arguing with someone who uses inconsistent rationales is difficult, but when there are such blatant flaws it is simple . . . .
So Bob, according to your latest rationale, My tank is teeming with "plant life" correct? And the "plant life" you are referring to is the coralline correct?
Since you seem to include now microalgaes in your definition of plant life, then based on that same rationale you are saying that microalgaes are desireable and beneficial.
I am glad you understand
So based on this logic, I can induce that I should be adding hair algae, cyanobacteria, valonia, and bryopsis to my tank in order to control my water parameters?
But wait a minute here . . . . I thought the addition of plant life was to eliminate such problems?
So which is it here?
Whats your next line of thought bob?
Absolutely!!!!!!!! Any plant life makes the system better. Some as you mentioned are just not desirable. therefore you get the plant life you want (even corraline) to out compete those for nutrients. But even if you just let the uglies grow, more livestock can be supported, and that live stock is healthier. As I stated previously, The worse thing that can be done is to tell a newbie to get a cleaner crew to get rid of the hair algae. The reasult could and has been a system with extremely limited plant life. Then the newbie wonders why is fish are dieing later. What needs to be done is to add plant life that is desirable, get that established and thriving, and then limit or remove the uglies. But just adding a cleaner crew in not the whole picture.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 007
So plants dont consume metals correct? (you just said they don't)
that is correct. From what I understand and post heavy metals are not consumed.
Then what happens to all the metal ions found in tap water? The levels of metal Ions found in tap water I am sure exceeed the concentrations found on natural reefs. By not changing water you have an accumulation of these metals in your water.
Thats not very "nature like" now is it?
But wait a minute . . . . I thought that
As I have stated many many times, a single ion of say copper does not remain in the water column and go from coral to coral to invert, killing all of them.
The same tap water in your house flows down rivers into the ocean. It is the source of the trace elements in the ocean and even the salt. Yet the ocean survives and thrives. Obviously something is filtering out all those ions yet still allowing the salt to get to the ocean.
What happens is the nitrates, ammonia, phosphates, and carbon dioxide is consumed and used for growth and life of the plant life. And in the process heavy ions and other non consumables are trapped in the cells or filtered out of the water.
So to maintain healthy aqauriums, it is extremely important to maintain vigorous plant life even corraline and hair algaes. And the extremly small (compaired to the bioload) of nutrients from tap help that process. So with two tanks both at say 1ppm nitrates, the one with the most extensive and active plant life will be filtering out more or the heavy ions and other toxins.
cincyreefer
Active Member
Just figured I would show some of the information I just read in the Konetic annual wastewater journal.
"Heavy metal pollution from industrial wastewater is a worldwide environmental issue. Biosorption of heavy metals by using biosorbents derived from various types of biomass has been shown to be effective for the uptake of heavy metal ions. In this study, biosorbents derived from the biomass of a group of marine macroalgae were used for the removal and recovery of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions. Results indicated that the biosorbents have high uptake capacities and affinities for a number of heavy metal ions. The uptake capacities of the biosorbents were in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 mmol/g for divalent heavy metal ions. The kinetics of the uptake process was fast and the process can be used in both batch and fixed-bed operations. It appears that the biosorption process by using biosorbents from marine macroalgae can be an efficient and cost effective technology for the treatment of heavy metal containing wastewater."
"Heavy metal pollution from industrial wastewater is a worldwide environmental issue. Biosorption of heavy metals by using biosorbents derived from various types of biomass has been shown to be effective for the uptake of heavy metal ions. In this study, biosorbents derived from the biomass of a group of marine macroalgae were used for the removal and recovery of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions. Results indicated that the biosorbents have high uptake capacities and affinities for a number of heavy metal ions. The uptake capacities of the biosorbents were in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 mmol/g for divalent heavy metal ions. The kinetics of the uptake process was fast and the process can be used in both batch and fixed-bed operations. It appears that the biosorption process by using biosorbents from marine macroalgae can be an efficient and cost effective technology for the treatment of heavy metal containing wastewater."
jedininja
Member
Originally posted by beaslbob
that is correct. From what I understand and post heavy metals are not consumed.
[/B]
Not cunsumed? I have found dozens, maybe hundreads of posts where you say plants WILL consume heavy metals. You even have clips of quotes that helps you back this up. And now you are changing your story. What are you gonna change next?
that is correct. From what I understand and post heavy metals are not consumed.
[/B]
Not cunsumed? I have found dozens, maybe hundreads of posts where you say plants WILL consume heavy metals. You even have clips of quotes that helps you back this up. And now you are changing your story. What are you gonna change next?
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by jedininja
Not cunsumed? I have found dozens, maybe hundreads of posts where you say plants WILL consume heavy metals. You even have clips of quotes that helps you back this up. And now you are changing your story. What are you gonna change next?
I will edit any and all posts where I stated plant life "consumes" heavy metals. I have taken extreme care to say plant life consumes ammonia, nitrates, phosphates, and carbon dioxide., and filters out heavy ions in the process.
So if you have dozens bring them on. I desire to correct that error. After all we are all human. Even you could have misread my posts.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by cincyreefer
Just figured I would show some of the information I just read in the Konetic annual wastewater journal.
"Heavy metal pollution from industrial wastewater is a worldwide environmental issue. Biosorption of heavy metals by using biosorbents derived from various types of biomass has been shown to be effective for the uptake of heavy metal ions. In this study, biosorbents derived from the biomass of a group of marine macroalgae were used for the removal and recovery of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions. Results indicated that the biosorbents have high uptake capacities and affinities for a number of heavy metal ions. The uptake capacities of the biosorbents were in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 mmol/g for divalent heavy metal ions. The kinetics of the uptake process was fast and the process can be used in both batch and fixed-bed operations. It appears that the biosorption process by using biosorbents from marine macroalgae can be an efficient and cost effective technology for the treatment of heavy metal containing wastewater."
Cincy: well said. Seems that drinkalbe tap water would be absolutely no problem. Nice to know my years of using plant life were correct after all. Again thanks.
007
Active Member
Any plant life makes the system better.
Okay I will assume this to be true for the moment.
Some as you mentioned are just not desirable.
So if they make the system better as you previously mentioned . . . . then why are they not desireable?
even if you just let the uglies grow, more livestock can be supported, and that live stock is healthier.
How does letting the "uglies" grow allow more livestock to be supported?
And furthermore, how is that livestock healthier?
The worse thing that can be done is to tell a newbie to get a cleaner crew to get rid of the hair algae.
Why is this the worst thing that can be done?
I highly doubt that any single new hobbiest ever goes out and sets up a tank with the intention of filling it with hair algae. Find me one new hobbiest that desires to set up a tank and grow any form of filamentous algae. Find me one.
Then the newbie wonders why is fish are dieing later.
Your fish died bob. End of story.
What needs to be done is to add plant life
Yeah we got that already . . .
get that established and thriving, and then limit or remove the uglies.
Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . . . we need to remove the "uglies"??? I thought that any plant life makes a system better?
But just adding a cleaner crew in not the whole picture.
uhhh . . . . what?
While I am on the subject of "uglies" here . . . . I thought that having macroalgaes was supposed to eliminate the "uglies". Apparently though thats not the case if you have to limit or remove them as previously mentioned.
Okay I will assume this to be true for the moment.
Some as you mentioned are just not desirable.
So if they make the system better as you previously mentioned . . . . then why are they not desireable?
even if you just let the uglies grow, more livestock can be supported, and that live stock is healthier.
How does letting the "uglies" grow allow more livestock to be supported?
And furthermore, how is that livestock healthier?
The worse thing that can be done is to tell a newbie to get a cleaner crew to get rid of the hair algae.
Why is this the worst thing that can be done?
I highly doubt that any single new hobbiest ever goes out and sets up a tank with the intention of filling it with hair algae. Find me one new hobbiest that desires to set up a tank and grow any form of filamentous algae. Find me one.
Then the newbie wonders why is fish are dieing later.
Your fish died bob. End of story.
What needs to be done is to add plant life
Yeah we got that already . . .
get that established and thriving, and then limit or remove the uglies.
Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . . . we need to remove the "uglies"??? I thought that any plant life makes a system better?
But just adding a cleaner crew in not the whole picture.
uhhh . . . . what?
While I am on the subject of "uglies" here . . . . I thought that having macroalgaes was supposed to eliminate the "uglies". Apparently though thats not the case if you have to limit or remove them as previously mentioned.
007
Active Member
Originally posted by Kip4130
the whole thing about the macro algae filtering ions and being effective .... what amounts of macros did they say were needed to absorb X amount of heavy metals ?
Excellent point and furthermore . . . is there a link available to that article? i would be very interested in seeing it. I would even take a mailed photo copy of it if thats all that is available.
bang guy
Moderator
Cincy -
Can you give a short synopsis of what your exerpt means in context? When I read it is get some product made from some marine algae remove some heavy metal ions.
Do you know what algae or even type (micro ,macro, zooxanthellae, etc.) and is the product derived from the algae living or dead, and what metals are not biosorbed? This would be extremely interesting to me.
Numbers I've seen indicate Copper, Zinc, Tin, Nickel, Aluminum, and Lithium are not taken in by Caulerpa racemosa. I'm sure different alga behave differently but nobody want to spend the money to find out.
Can you give a short synopsis of what your exerpt means in context? When I read it is get some product made from some marine algae remove some heavy metal ions.
Do you know what algae or even type (micro ,macro, zooxanthellae, etc.) and is the product derived from the algae living or dead, and what metals are not biosorbed? This would be extremely interesting to me.
Numbers I've seen indicate Copper, Zinc, Tin, Nickel, Aluminum, and Lithium are not taken in by Caulerpa racemosa. I'm sure different alga behave differently but nobody want to spend the money to find out.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally posted by beaslbob
Nice to know my years of using plant life were correct after all. Again thanks.
Bob adds toxins to tank, Bob's plants eat toxins, Bob's fish eat plants, Bob's fish die an early death, fish removed from tank, toxins removed with fish.
Sounds like a winner.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 007 Okay I will assume this to be true for the moment.
So if they make the system better as you previously mentioned . . . . then why are they not desireable?
I give up why? But some people seems to think so.
How does letting the "uglies" grow allow more livestock to be supported?
And furthermore, how is that livestock healthier?
By consuming ammonia,phosphates, nitrates, and carbon dioxide
---- my post the worse things could be removeing the hair in new tanks
[hr]
Why is this the worst thing that can be done?
Because consumption of ammonia, nitrates, phosphates, and carbon dioxide is vastly reduced.
I highly doubt that any single new hobbiest ever goes out and sets up a tank with the intention of filling it with hair algae. Find me one new hobbiest that desires to set up a tank and grow any form of filamentous algae. Find me one.
you are absolutely correct. no hobbiest (to my knowledge) has had to fill the tank with hair algae. It just grew on it's own. Even in algae scrubbers some use. Some including me have started tanks with the full intention of allowing the hair to spread as a welcome sight. Given the choice between hair or no algae I'll take hair anytime. And you know what, it doesnt even fill that tank. Just covers things then stops growing when the algae mass reduces nutrients.
Your fish died bob. End of story.
Yes I have had fish actually die. I also have had fish that lived to 4 years. My fish died with no macros and very limited hair, lived with macros and hair. As you said end of story.
Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . . . we need to remove the "uglies"??? I thought that any plant life makes a system better?
It does. if you want to remove hair then use other forms of plant life. No absolute need to remove hair
While I am on the subject of "uglies" here . . . . I thought that having macroalgaes was supposed to eliminate the "uglies". Apparently though thats not the case if you have to limit or remove them as previously mentioned.
Just in case some got by
My position is that the desirables will limit or eliminate the uglies. My point on this post was to not just remove uglies without adding plant life back in to continue maintaining the system. They can reduce hair to unnoticable levels. But a final mechanical removal of hair would speed the process along.
So if they make the system better as you previously mentioned . . . . then why are they not desireable?
I give up why? But some people seems to think so.
How does letting the "uglies" grow allow more livestock to be supported?
And furthermore, how is that livestock healthier?
By consuming ammonia,phosphates, nitrates, and carbon dioxide
---- my post the worse things could be removeing the hair in new tanks
[hr]
Why is this the worst thing that can be done?
Because consumption of ammonia, nitrates, phosphates, and carbon dioxide is vastly reduced.
I highly doubt that any single new hobbiest ever goes out and sets up a tank with the intention of filling it with hair algae. Find me one new hobbiest that desires to set up a tank and grow any form of filamentous algae. Find me one.
you are absolutely correct. no hobbiest (to my knowledge) has had to fill the tank with hair algae. It just grew on it's own. Even in algae scrubbers some use. Some including me have started tanks with the full intention of allowing the hair to spread as a welcome sight. Given the choice between hair or no algae I'll take hair anytime. And you know what, it doesnt even fill that tank. Just covers things then stops growing when the algae mass reduces nutrients.
Your fish died bob. End of story.
Yes I have had fish actually die. I also have had fish that lived to 4 years. My fish died with no macros and very limited hair, lived with macros and hair. As you said end of story.
Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . . . we need to remove the "uglies"??? I thought that any plant life makes a system better?
It does. if you want to remove hair then use other forms of plant life. No absolute need to remove hair
While I am on the subject of "uglies" here . . . . I thought that having macroalgaes was supposed to eliminate the "uglies". Apparently though thats not the case if you have to limit or remove them as previously mentioned.
Just in case some got by
My position is that the desirables will limit or eliminate the uglies. My point on this post was to not just remove uglies without adding plant life back in to continue maintaining the system. They can reduce hair to unnoticable levels. But a final mechanical removal of hair would speed the process along.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bang Guy
Bob adds toxins to tank, Bob's plants eat toxins, Bob's fish eat plants, Bob's fish die an early death, fish removed from tank, toxins removed with fish.
Sounds like a winner.
Come on bang. Is that why I have had fish live 4 years.
Basically It looks like you guys are really really reaching for anything.
squidd
Active Member
How Much Bob...
How much "plant Life do I need to add/maintain in my system to remove all the ammonia,nitrite,nitrate,phosphate,etc...So that I don't need to do water changes or buy an expensive skimmer..
Can you put a number on it...20 gal/lbs 50...100...1000...more...?
Idon't have room for a 900 gal lagoon to grow plant life and it has been proven that that's not enough maintain healthy levels in a 155 gal display...
Which I bought by the way with all the money I saved by not getting a skimmer and RO machine...
How much is it gonna cost me to have ENOUGH plant life to purify my tap water AND keep my low fish load non-coral sustaining glass box of alge alive...
I want numbers...
How much "plant Life do I need to add/maintain in my system to remove all the ammonia,nitrite,nitrate,phosphate,etc...So that I don't need to do water changes or buy an expensive skimmer..
Can you put a number on it...20 gal/lbs 50...100...1000...more...?
Idon't have room for a 900 gal lagoon to grow plant life and it has been proven that that's not enough maintain healthy levels in a 155 gal display...
Which I bought by the way with all the money I saved by not getting a skimmer and RO machine...
How much is it gonna cost me to have ENOUGH plant life to purify my tap water AND keep my low fish load non-coral sustaining glass box of alge alive...
I want numbers...